Today the government presented the budget bill for 2021. The budget contains a number of initiatives that concern and affect Sweden's students. SFS's overall assessment is that although much more needs to be done, the budget contains several initiatives that are positive and that will provide greater opportunities to continue the work to ensure that all students have a good study situation.
The biggest news is that the state grant to student unions is being increased by 25 million. An increase that is lower than what SFS has been working for, but a step in the right direction and a welcome announcement. The student movement has been pushing this issue for many years and it is a great success that this now looks like it will become a reality.
The proposals that stand out and SFS's comment in brief are:
- 25 million more SEK for student influence!
- 18,895 new fully funded educational places. SFS views the university's expansion positively but negatively the fact that the places do not fit within the regular sizing system.
- Lifelong learning is no longer performance-based and higher education institutions receive funding even if students do not take their points. SFS is positive and sees that this should apply to all education in the future.
- Investment support for student housing is being increased. SFS is positive about this.
- Student aid is being increased and the supplementary loan is being increased. SFS sees that much more can be done here.
- Resources for student health. SFS is positive but sees a great need for more long-term work to promote students' mental health and work environment.
- Support for the Swedish Gender Equality Authority to work with gender equality at universities and colleges. SFS is positive and hopes this can lead to increased work with the university's gender equality work.
- Erosion, appropriations need to be increased to avoid erosion. SFS is concerned that the productivity deduction is increasing
- The research and innovation bill has become relatively large and we are following the development of its more detailed content closely.
Below we comment on these points in more depth by going into what the exact proposals mean and where SFS stands on the issue.
25 million more for student influence
The government grant for student influence is proposed to be increased by 25 million by 2021 and then by 20 million in the following years. SFS has been pushing this issue for a long time, as we have not seen an increase in the level of government grant since the union obligation was abolished in 2010. The issue has also become even more relevant during the current corona pandemic when student influence has had to be carried out remotely, which has been a major challenge for several student unions around the country, which already had strained resources to begin with.
SFS would have liked to see a larger increase and advocates the line recommended by UKÄ with a tripling or quadrupling of the state grant. However, we understand that the government needs to have strict priorities in these times and we therefore see this increase of approximately 75% as gratifying and a big step in the right direction. Sweden's student unions now have a stronger opportunity to continue their work to provide Sweden's students with a better education and an improved study situation in a more equal and independent way.
18,895 more training places
The government has previously stated that the number of education places will increase. This is partly part of a long-term ambition, and partly part of special initiatives to meet the demand for higher education that has followed the corona pandemic. SFS is positive about this and it is positive that the places are fully funded, which was not a guarantee before the budget release today.
In total, the appropriations increase by SEK 1,7 billion to finance 18,895 new training places next year. The distribution between different training courses is illustrated by the number of places in the following table:
(Table from the 2021 Budget Bill, expenditure area 16, p. 151)
The largest expansion of 5200 training places is aimed at training for shortage professions. The expansion within this category has in recent years included "Care training, preschool teacher training and teacher training, engineering training and training of importance for the development of society" and later also medical training. There is also a general expansion to make higher education available throughout the country, it includes 1920 places. In addition, there is a permanent expansion of vocational teacher training and supplementary pedagogical training.
To meet the increased demand in connection with corona, two temporary expansions are also being made. This concerns further education at the advanced level, which is being expanded by 4,100 places and an increase in base years by 4,000 places.
SFS sees it as a natural measure for the university to be expanded during a time of economic crisis when more people are applying for higher education. However, SFS believes that it is risky for the state to directly control investments in which educational places are to be given and would rather see the higher education institutions' ceilings being raised in general. The ordinary sizing system based on student demand generally works well to meet society's needs. If the state or other actors want more people to study for a certain profession, it is better to first increase the attractiveness of the profession and the quality of the education and then size proportionally to the application pressure instead of artificially increasing the number of educational places for a certain profession.
Lifelong learning no longer performance-based
One part of the expansion is new for this year and deserves a separate comment. It concerns an increase in the number of places in the “lifelong learning” category.
Lifelong learning is not formally a separate category of education, but it usually refers to the type of education that is given in the evening, part-time or distance and is therefore easier to combine with being in a professional position. Traditionally, the education can be found in all subjects and can be applied for by anyone. However, it is common for them to have lower throughput because many professionals do not prioritize taking the exams even if they undergo the education itself. Traditionally, however, this means that the higher education institutions do not receive the same compensation for this type of course, which creates a negative incentive.
Here is an interesting piece of news in this year's budget. The funds for lifelong learning education will be paid in full regardless of whether the students take their points. In this way, the biggest obstacle to organizing lifelong learning education is currently removed. This is what the government writes about the initiative:
"The investment in lifelong learning proposed in this bill means that the amount of compensation that universities and colleges receive per full-year student corresponds to the level that a higher education institution is normally allowed to deduct for both a full-year student and a full-year performance within the framework of the allocation for education at the basic and advanced levels. This is considered important so that the investment can contribute to creating more opportunities for transition and further education for people who are in the middle of life."
Budget Bill 2021, Expenditure Area 16
SFS is very positive about the disappearance of the performance-based part of the grants. If we are to be critical of anything, it is that the same change could have been applied to all educational grants for all students. However, we understand that this would then constitute a major reform that would require a more extensive impact analysis and consultation round. We hope that initiatives in this direction will be included in the research bill later this year.
Investment support for student housing
The government is increasing investment support for the construction of rental housing and student housing from the current SEK 7,5 billion to SEK 9,3 billion for 2021. It will then increase by SEK 1,1 billion until 2022 and then SEK 1,9 billion in 2023. Since the investment support was introduced in 2016, just over SEK 12 billion has been granted for approximately 35,800 homes at relatively lower rents than would have been the case without the investment support. The continued investment of a total of SEK 12,3 billion until 2023 means, according to a rough estimate, that approximately the same number of homes as were built between 2016-2020 (exception from 2019 when the support was removed) should be able to be built from 2021 to 2023.
SFS views this very positively. The investment support is an important measure to increase the construction of rental apartments that students can afford to demand. The government's investment until 2023 will hopefully mean that construction will not slow down despite the current economic situation and that the housing shortage in many study locations will decrease in the long term.
Student support
The government is proposing a new section in the Student Financial Aid Act to increase the supplementary loan in the event of extraordinary events in peacetime. Supplementary loans can be granted to students over 25 years of age who have had a certain amount of earned income before starting their studies, or to students who have certain additional costs in connection with their studies. SFS is positive about this.
In addition to this, the study funds for 2021 will be increased slightly as a result of the price base amount being increased, which means an increase from the current 10,860 SEK to 10,928 SEK for four weeks of full-time studies. SFS thinks it is positive that the study funds are not eroded. However, SFS would have liked to see a general increase in the study funds, as we know that many students have a tough time making ends meet. Many who previously depended on extra income from work during the semester or summer jobs, and who have not had that opportunity since the corona pandemic broke out, have now found it extra tough financially.
SFS would generally have liked to see an increase in the grant component of student support, as we know that the recruitment effect of the study grant is lacking in certain groups who are afraid of taking out large loans. It would also mean an increased incentive to study the courses that often lead to work with relatively lower wages, for example the shortage professions we see today in schools, healthcare and social care that the government announces as “shortage professions”. SFS would also have liked to see the number of weeks for being able to take study support increase from the current 240 to 320 weeks, to adapt the support to the fact that the courses have become longer with the Bologna Process. We would also have liked to see the grant and loan components separated and used separately, so that it is possible to dispose of your study support more freely and, for example, to be able to take the grant component without using up the loan component.
Increased resources for student healthcare
“The government wants to strengthen student health as a preventive measure so that all students can feel safe during their studies. The initiative means that the government is directing funds to increase the ambition for student health. Starting in 2021, SEK 25 million is proposed to strengthen student health, prevent mental and physical ill health and contribute to a better study environment. The initiative can particularly benefit students who are not used to studying.”
Budget Bill 2021, Expenditure Area 16
It is clear that many students have had a difficult time during the corona pandemic. Many courses have been moved remotely and many student unions are experiencing an increase in problems with loneliness. More and more people are also experiencing anxiety, both about being able to cope with their education and about what the future will look like if the corona pandemic is followed by a recession. It is good that students who experience loneliness, stress and anxiety have somewhere to turn. Student health plays an extremely important role in this.
However, we want to put a stop to overly one-sided efforts to support students only when they are unwell. The long-term work must be preventive and take place systematically in the education programmes themselves. It is about getting to grips with the type of unclear requirements, lack of support and fierce competition that means that some education programmes are risking mental ill health among students. Here too, student healthcare has an important role to play, but it cannot replace systematic work environment work within higher education.
During the autumn, the University Chancellor's Office will report on a mission in which they investigate the role of student health. Hopefully, they will clarify how student health should contribute to systematic work environment work in higher education. During the autumn, the government will also present a new work environment strategy. In order for the work with student mental health to develop, it is important that students are clearly reflected in that strategy.
Support for increased gender equality within the university
The budget proposes that five million go to the Swedish Gender Equality Authority to support universities and colleges' work on gender mainstreaming.
SFS believes that there are shortcomings in gender equality at higher education. For example, it is clear that there are hidden exclusion mechanisms that make it more difficult for women to pursue a career in academia. Among new students, there are more women than men, but among employed teaching and research staff, 46% are women and 54% are men. However, among professors, the proportion of women is only 29%. (https://www.uka.se/om-oss/aktuellt/nyheter/2019-05-07-andelen-kvinnliga-professorer-har-okat-till-29-procent.html)
Many universities and colleges take this seriously and are actively trying to remove the obstacles that currently exclude women from academia, but many obstacles are hidden and preventive work requires good knowledge of which mechanisms need to be addressed. For example, there is a documented bias that causes the research community to make a more negative assessment of scientific articles if they have been written by a female researcher compared to if the same article is presented by a male researcher. This type of unconscious discrimination is difficult to overcome. It is therefore important that an expert authority provides universities with support to develop this work.
SFS therefore welcomes the government's strengthening of the conditions for gender mainstreaming. We hope that further investments in gender equality and recruitment targets will be included in the research bill.
Hollowing out
A recurring issue in the budget context concerns the increase in appropriations to compensate for increases in salaries and other costs. If the appropriations are not increased in line with the increase in the costs of higher education institutions for premises and personnel, the same appropriations in nominal terms would mean that the operations will need to be cut back in the long term. The appropriations in the state budget are therefore increased every year, but it is often a problem that the increase does not follow the actual price trend, and in the long term this leads to an erosion.
In one of the opening chapters of the budget (https://www.regeringen.se/4a6921/contentassets/bc0f4b1a4ce844f2aa59949d09c93f29/forslag-till-statens-budget-for-2021-finansplan-och-skattefragor-kapitel-1-13-bilagor-1-17.pdf) there is a table that indicates the general increases for the entire state budget:
The conversion for salaries is 1,25%. In reality, however, it would have had to amount to 2,72% to correspond to wage increases in the labor market (labor cost index). However, due to a general saving of 1,47% in the state budget in the form of a productivity deduction, the conversion is lower. This therefore constitutes a general saving in the state budget, a so-called “cheese shaving”. Exactly how the various appropriations then change is also affected by how much of the costs of the various activities will go to personnel, premises and other things.
For the higher education sector, the savings are lower. Education appropriations are increased by 1,72% (expenditure area 16, p. 150. This is approximately 1 percentage point lower than the labour cost index, which is 2,72%.
Universities and colleges do not only have salary costs, but also, for example, premises costs that have a different calculation, but we see that the productivity deduction roughly amounts to 1%. This is therefore lower than other parts of the state budget. Nevertheless, this year it corresponds to 514 million kronor in savings on direct appropriations for education and research. In addition, there are savings for state research financiers, etc. It may be worth remembering, even if the investments in this year's budget are larger.
Even though the productivity deduction can now be considered an integral part of the state budget process for redistribution between budget expenditures and to create “space for reform”, we want to be careful to flag what consequences this leads to. We see this, for example, when it comes to more educational places. More places but fewer resources per place and strictly increasing the number of degree objectives have been the mantra for about 25 years. This leads to each educational place receiving lower quality every year and the state taking on greater and greater responsibility for how the resources are to be distributed instead of expert authorities doing it themselves. It is also distressing that research is continuously receiving more real resources while education is constantly losing resources in real terms.
Research and Innovation Bill
The research and innovation policy bill (the research bill) lays the foundation for the conditions for the higher education sector over the next four years. This is done by announcing total levels for how much the state's research investments can be expected to increase and by directing research to certain areas. The total levels for the coming years can be summarized as follows:
- 2021: SEK 3,4 billion
- 2022: SEK 3,2 billion
- 2023: SEK 3,3 billion
- 2024: SEK 3,7 billion
This is a relatively large research cap, which can be justified, among other things, by the fact that companies are less inclined to invest in research projects, which means that the state must cover these losses. The research cap will be presented in its entirety to the Riksdag in November if everything goes according to plan, but much has already been announced.
The government has previously announced a number of major areas for investment as follows:
- Efforts to defend Sweden as a leading research nation
- Strengthening of funds for the Swedish Research Council as well as targeted initiatives and other basic research
- Investment in research infrastructure
- Increased basic funding for universities and colleges
- Focus on centers of excellence
- Investment in a postgraduate school for folk high school teachers
- Strengthening financial market research
Here, SFS is primarily satisfied that the higher education institutions receive increased basic funding. This is something that the Steering and Resources Inquiry proposes and is good for reducing the enormous pressure that exists on teachers in higher education institutions to attract external funds. This will hopefully enable research and education to be better linked, but it also depends to a large extent on how the higher education institutions distribute their resources internally.
The budget bill that is now being presented also makes a number of other clarifications regarding the focus of the research cap:
- Strategic initiatives to meet societal challenges
- The societal challenge of climate and environment
- The societal challenge of health and welfare
- The societal challenge of skills supply and transition
- The societal challenge of digitalization
- The societal challenge of a democratic and strong society
- Research infrastructures for new breakthroughs and innovations
- Free research must be protected
- The central role of colleges and universities in building society
The above areas are most likely to be expected as several of them are related to previous research bills that will run across the mandate periods. What is interesting is that it is mentioned that “free research shall be prioritized”, which possibly implies that not all research is free, even though the constitution states that all research shall be free.
There are many things we would like to see in the upcoming research policy bill. Among other things, we would like to see several parts from the Governance and Resource Review included, not least that allocation based on full-year performance be removed. We also believe that increased investments in higher education pedagogical development, gender equality and research on mental health are of great importance. Doctoral students whose research and postgraduate education have been delayed due to the corona pandemic must also be given increased opportunities for prolongation. We also want to emphasize that higher education must not be reduced to just a means of providing skills and innovation, although they are also of course important, without the educational offering as a whole providing opportunities for new thinking and education for students and, in the long run, the country's inhabitants.
Overall, the balance between education and research must also be improved. Right now, we have a funding system that continuously increases research resources while education is allowed to become less and less with each passing year. We also believe that it is important for the state to have long-term discussions about the challenges of higher education and not just research. The current policy around higher education easily becomes short-term based on the priority areas of different actors for each year, and the state should facilitate a joint discussion about which challenges we should work on together between each round.